Staunton Hill (2009)

I'm not going to bother giving the plot details as other reviewers have done this already. I am going to give you what I liked and disliked about this film. I love all horror films and will give anything a go. I always read reviews on here first but try not to let them colour my judgement before I watch. Having read quite a lot of negative reviews about Staunton Hill, I wasn't sure what I was in for. Personally I feel some of the reviews were a bit harsh, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion, is that this could have been so much more, but sadly the film ended up being a confusing mess. That's not to say it didn't have its positive points and I actually enjoyed some of it.Firstly I loved the look of the film, whether this is down to direction or location, I'm not sure. I liked the fact that the Staunton family looked relatively normal. The gore scenes were, for the most part, realistic and well done.However, I have no idea what the intermittent scenes of the doctor and the young girl were all about and I feel these were not explained at all. Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, we are left with no idea whatsoever what happened to some of the characters.All in all, Staunton Hill had potential, but ended up confusing. The decent gore scenes bumped up my vote.

Okay I think everyone understands that any low budget movie is likely to have some funny quirks or things you might have done differently if you were the director. For the most part though I think Romero did a good job.The actors did really very good. The group of kids did a good job seeming really afraid. I thought Kathy Lamkin was great like usual. She seems to play that role a lot and it fits her great... she rocks.The special effects could have been given a little more attention. When one of the cast gets his leg shot off it just looks like it came detached from underneath the pant leg with no blood... not really convincing. But everything else was okay for what they had to work with.I think if you're bored watch it. It will keep you entertained.

My first glimpse of how this film would turn out was while still browsing at the video store. I saw the name Romero and thought to myself "Could that be the son of George Romero?" I flipped it over to read the back thinking how silly of me expecting to see some reference to George Romero, that would just be cheesy and unprofessional, but there it was. Great big bold letters that said "Son of the legendary George Romero!" My heart sank. I saw this as a sign that the son, as a director, and the film could not stand on it's own without the support of the name of his father. Being pressed for time I rented it and took it home, hoping for the best. It was just as bad as I feared it would be.I'll start of with the dialogue. It seems like the writing was done before deciding to set the film in the 1960's. It is throughout the film awkward and badly written, with a couple of 1960's slang phrases thrown in here and there. Then, as if the bold outline of his family ties printed on the back was not enough for the audience to make a connection to George Romero, the "hippies" had to bring up 'Night of the Living Dead.' The acting falls short of a that you would find on a television soap opera. I was waiting for the commercials to interrupt, and there definitely were enough pauses in the filming to insert them. It's as if he had a thought for a scene, then another thought for a scene further down in the sequence, but couldn't really think of what could go in between to connect them. Instead of filling in the plot holes he just faded out and faded into another scene. That not only looks terrible, it is leads to a non-cohesive storyline. Even with all of the inconsistencies in the story, it was clear at the beginning what the end would be.After watching it, I realize where the bulk of the effort went... gore, gore, and more gore. Disgusting, useless, and at times, clearly fake. I feel that I could recreate most of the torture and mutilation scenes with some fake body parts from a prop shop and about 30 gallons of fake blood, but who would want to recreate that? It seems that all of the violence and blood spill has become a universal cover-up for lack of creative thought. If you know an audience is not going to be interested in your story, try to add the most over-the-top gore and hopefully they wont notice how lame your story is. But if all else fails, drop the name of your famous father and it will be sure to get at least a bit of circulation.

As you have already read, this movie progresses at a snails pace. The first 48 minutes, nothing happens. Hitchhikers going to a rally. They get a ride. They stop for the night. They wake up. Eat breakfast.. yawn...Sure, the family is creepy; but, isn't that the biggest movie cliché there is? The filmmakers managed to pull out every trick that had already been done in other movies (most notably Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise) without adding in any elements of suspense, horror, or empathy.What little story there is is revealed in flash-backs that are so disjointed from the actual action that you just tent to zone out and ignore them. One, I thought was actually a commercial break; but, there weren't any commercials during this viewing.Yes, that's how bad this is. And, I've seen movies like THE PINK ANGELS. Don't waste your time, no one knows how to make a horror movie anymore, unless it's slathered with special effects gore.